§ 11. Mr. ELLIS DAVIESasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the fact that, whilst the total sum which can be awarded to a widow and her young children as compensation for the death of the husband and father under the Workmen's Compensation Act is £600, the Courts are awarding injured workmen much larger sums in settlement of claims for partial disablement; and whether he will take steps to amend the Act so as to secure a fairer provision for the widow and young children where the breadwinner is killed?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am aware that in certain cases of disablement the workman has received a lump sum exceeding the maximum of £600 payable in cases of death, but this does not show that the maximum is unfair or afford any ground for raising it. I cannot hold out any expectation of amending legislation.
§ 20. Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the workman involved in the Yorkshire Coal-owners' Industry Company v. Lovett case was seriously prejudiced as a result of the now admitted irregularity of notice as per Section 14 of the Compensation Act, 1923, and that compensation was withheld from 11th November, 1926, until October, 1927; and will he state whether adequate reparation has been made to the workman?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, who investigated the case, that from 20th November, 1926, up to 26th October, 1927, the workman had his weekly payment reduced from 30s. to 15s., but that this was rectified on the latter date, when the Judge directed that the weekly payment should be made up to 30s. over the whole of that period.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSDid the company make any reparation to this man, who was deprived of his compensation for a lengthy period, and who, incidentally, was prejudiced from obtaining employment which otherwise was possible?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSReparation has been paid in full. Beyond that, it is entirely a question between the company and the workman.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSSince the withholding of compensation for eight months was due to an irregularity on the part of the indemnity company, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that they ought to have made some more reparation than the legal claim to which he was entitled?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not think so. It is merely an instance of anybody who is damnified not being paid at the time he ought to be paid, and there is no compensation in law recoverable for non-payment.